Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15989664

Brimonidine.

L B Cantor·J Burke
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Brimonidine tartrate is a highly selective alpha2-adrenergic receptor agonist indicated for the chronic treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Glaucoma, a serious worldwide public health problem causing blindness in 5.2 million people, is treated by drugs that lower the intraocular pressure (IOP), a primary risk factor in glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Currently, beta-blockers are the most common therapy. In two 12-month clinical comparison trials with timolol 0.5% (n = 926), twice-daily brimonidine produced IOP lowering comparable to twice-daily timolol. In a 3-month trial with betaxolol 0.25% suspension (n = 206), twice-daily brimonidine was more effective in lowering IOP than twice-daily betaxolol. Brimonidine was well-tolerated ocularly and systemically in these trials. It caused no clinically significant mean changes in heart rate or blood pressure. Brimonidine produced no significant effect on FEV1 in clinical trials, and it is not contraindicated in patients with cardiopulmonary disease. Brimonidine 0.2% dosed twice daily has clinical utility as a first-line drug therapy. It is an effective and safe alternative to beta-blockers, particularly in patients at risk for pulmonary or cardiovascular disease. It decreases aqueous humour production and increases uveoscleral outflow, and has an additive ocular hypotensive effect used concomitantly with other agents. Brimonidine has demonstrated neuroprotective properties in laboratory animal studies. Additional studies are warranted to determine whether brimonidine has clinical benefit in protecting the optic nerve head from glaucomatous damage. Brimonidine is an important contribution to glaucoma management.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L B Cantor, J Burke. 1997. Brimonidine.. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.6.8.1063

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗